>From what I understand, SLAAC only works with /64s, larger breaks various discovery protocols and is against RFC. Half of the address is the prefix and the other half is (mostly) MAC. What you're describing would work if we didn't want to do SLAAC, but would require an alternate means of assignment. This sort of goes back to me wanting to be able to assign multiple ranges to a network, say a "SLAAC /64" and a "Manually assigned /64" by providing a field to tag the prefix with a type.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> guest networks, my initial preference would be for SLAAC, but I think >> ultimately we'd want to be able to assign multiple ips to a guest. >> With the 64 bits of the SLAAC space dedicated to all of the unique MAC >> address possibilities, we can't really do that. We may want to >> consider DHCP with static assignments from the beginning. > > > Wouldn't an admin that requires this just have to assign bigger > networks? /60 for the tiers and /56 for the vpc... Seems like this is > not an argument against SLAAC in favor of DHCP. do tell me I am > stoned, Daan
